A recent court filing has shed light on a contentious legal battle involving allegations of malpractice, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. On August 7, 2024, Ellie Kaucher filed a complaint against Remedy Law Group, LLP in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.
Ellie Kaucher, formerly a provost at Phillips Graduate University (PGU), alleges that she was wrongfully terminated in 2017 after disclosing an illegal scheme to PGU’s directors. She claims that PGU also retaliated against two coworkers who supported her. Initially represented by other counsel, Kaucher was later solicited by Remedy Law Group despite her concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to their concurrent representation of her coworkers. Remedy assured her there was no conflict, leading her to hire them in 2018.
The crux of Kaucher's complaint revolves around Remedy's handling of her case against PGU. According to the lawsuit, Remedy received a copy of PGU’s insurance policy with a $1 million liability limit but failed to make a timely policy limits demand despite knowing the importance due to PGU’s financial difficulties. In 2019, when PGU offered $500,000 at a settlement conference, Remedy advised Kaucher to reject it. Subsequently, they filed whistleblower complaints for her coworkers without informing her about the conflict of interest and eventually withdrew from representing all parties in 2020.
Kaucher's lawsuit asserts that she suffered significant harm due to Remedy's actions: losing competent initial counsel based on misrepresentations about conflicts of interest; missing the opportunity for an effective policy limits demand; forfeiting the chance to secure $500,000 at settlement; depletion of PGU’s insurance by defense costs; and difficulty retaining new counsel because of liens on her recovery.
In response to these allegations, Remedy sought to disqualify Robert Hocker as Kaucher’s attorney under rule 3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, which restricts lawyers from acting as advocates in trials where they are likely witnesses unless specific conditions are met. Remedy argued that Hocker would be called as a witness regarding several critical issues including his delay in making a settlement demand on PGU and his role in settling the underlying action.
However, Kaucher opposed this motion vigorously. She consented to Hocker's dual role as both advocate and potential witness and argued that there was no genuine need for his testimony. The trial court agreed with Kaucher stating that there was no convincing evidence presented by Remedy showing prejudice or potential injury to the integrity of the judicial process if Hocker testified.
The court ruled that disqualifying Hocker would significantly prejudice Kaucher due to his extensive knowledge and involvement in the case over several years. It found no substantial evidence suggesting that Hocker’s testimony would confuse the jury or undermine justice. Consequently, it denied Remedy’s motion for disqualification.
This decision underscores important considerations regarding attorney disqualification motions: preserving public trust in justice administration while respecting clients' rights to choose their counsel unless clear detriment or judicial process integrity issues are demonstrated.
Representing defendants were Steven R. Yee and Karlfeldt Su from Yee & Associates while Robert N. Hocker from Browning | Hocker represented plaintiff Ellie Kaucher. The case is presided over by Judge Daniel S. Murphy under Case ID B331055.